Bevell is fired (hypothetically speaking)

[Threedee]

I'd like to see an OC that doesn't lose super bowls. Normally, gross negligence is grounds for firing in and of itself.

Ignorance of the highest level. Spoken by a poster that joined 12 days after the superbowl win. And of course didn't attribute the loss of Jeremy Lane to the defenses lapse in the 2nd half that led to the comeback.

And....Of course this poster didn't know that Browner (former Seahawk) knew what play was coming and directed the CB to the spot of the interception.

The only problem I have with that play is the receiver of the ill fated pass.

I have no problem with the 2nd half defense of that game. Everyone was banged-up, and it has occurred to me that their OC is better at adjustments than ours, along with practically every other consideration.

But, it's good to know we call our plays in a vacuum, without considering the defense we are up against.

 

[Threedee]

This is the tragic irony of Bevell haters. I just literally told the story of how the last play in the SB went down, and you still blame Bevell.

You have no idea that Pete said slant.
IMO Pete said pass (as he stated several times) and Bevell chose the ridiculous inside slant that was right into the teeth of the D.

Pete has said multiple times that it was his call. Bevell might have been involved in the conversation on the sideline, but make no mistake, it was Pete's final decision, and Pete's alone as to what play to run.

Here's the quote on SB Nation's article about the play

"I was so confident we were going to get it done," Carroll said. "Making the call we made was just part of the sequence. We were very confident in the sequence. We had a very clear thought about what was going on.

WE...............he said WE, not Bevell, not "I really had nothing to do with the call"................not "Oh man I was as shocked as everyone with what Darrell called"...................not "Man, I wish Darrell would have called a run play there."

We. Pete controls every facet of this team, you think he didn't have input into the last play of a SB? You're kidding yourself.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Pete to throw an assistant coach under the bus.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Pete to throw an assistant coach under the bus.

Why would he when he was at least 50% or more to blame for the call?

What, you just think Pete was wandering around behind the bench while Bevell was deciding which play to call for the biggest play of the SB?

If you guys think that, then let's just end the discussion now, because you're not being honest with your criticism. It was a joint effort, a joint discussion, as said so by Pete. Period. End of story. If you wanna blame, blame both. Other than that, we have nothing else to discuss.

 

[Threedee]

I guess we'll just have to wait for turnover at the OC position, and see what the offense looks like in the future.

 

[cymatica]

The only real head scratcher on that call imo is the decision to have lockette as the primary read. He was, what, the #5 receiver? Why would you rely on your 5th best receiver, in such a tight space, on such an important play?

 

[andyh64000]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Pete to throw an assistant coach under the bus.

Why would he when he was at least 50% or more to blame for the call?

What, you just think Pete was wandering around behind the bench while Bevell was deciding which play to call for the biggest play of the SB?

If you guys think that, then let's just end the discussion now, because you're not being honest with your criticism. It was a joint effort, a joint discussion, as said so by Pete. Period. End of story. If you wanna blame, blame both. Other than that, we have nothing else to discuss.

Yes...because of the clock and timeouts Pete wanted a pass. But Bevel definitely chose the horrible play (Pete doesn't even carry a play card). The play clock was running...there was no time for a discussion about the play. Bevel simply said OK...Russell run the absurdly risky middle slant timing pass to the middle of the field where the ball can be tipped and picked or jumped and picked since we are on the one yard line and everyone is already crammed in the middle.

 

[Siouxhawk]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Pete to throw an assistant coach under the bus.

Why would he when he was at least 50% or more to blame for the call?

What, you just think Pete was wandering around behind the bench while Bevell was deciding which play to call for the biggest play of the SB?

If you guys think that, then let's just end the discussion now, because you're not being honest with your criticism. It was a joint effort, a joint discussion, as said so by Pete. Period. End of story. If you wanna blame, blame both. Other than that, we have nothing else to discuss.

Yes...because of the clock and timeouts Pete wanted a pass. But Bevel definitely chose the horrible play (Pete doesn't even carry a play card). The play clock was running...there was no time for a discussion about the play. Bevel simply said OK...Russell run the absurdly risky middle slant timing pass to the middle of the field where the ball can be tipped and picked or jumped and picked since we are on the one yard line and everyone is already crammed in the middle.

And if Russ or Lockette can close the gap on that defining 6 inches, it's a touchdown in my opinion. But that's the beauty and intrigue of the unpredictability of sports.
It's all perspective anyhow. I'm still proud of the team for that season. Making it that far is very, very hard to do. Nothing to be ashamed about in a year that offered many thrills and much fingernail-biting excitement to this fanbase.

 

[Seymour]

This is the tragic irony of Bevell haters. I just literally told the story of how the last play in the SB went down, and you still blame Bevell.

You have no idea that Pete said slant.
IMO Pete said pass (as he stated several times) and Bevell chose the ridiculous inside slant that was right into the teeth of the D.

Pete has said multiple times that it was his call. Bevell might have been involved in the conversation on the sideline, but make no mistake, it was Pete's final decision, and Pete's alone as to what play to run.

Here's the quote on SB Nation's article about the play

"I was so confident we were going to get it done," Carroll said. "Making the call we made was just part of the sequence. We were very confident in the sequence. We had a very clear thought about what was going on.

WE...............he said WE, not Bevell, not "I really had nothing to do with the call"................not "Oh man I was as shocked as everyone with what Darrell called"...................not "Man, I wish Darrell would have called a run play there."

We. Pete controls every facet of this team, you think he didn't have input into the last play of a SB? You're kidding yourself.

Easy now, slow down. I said Pete made the call ...PASS. Pete does not call actual plays. During mike ups you can hear this, he says things like "give it to the big guy" or "lets take a shot here". He took the sword for Bevell, and that is that. Also, the call was rushed to begin with since they assumed Belichick would call time out which he didn't.

 

[razor150]

This is the tragic irony of Bevell haters. I just literally told the story of how the last play in the SB went down, and you still blame Bevell.

You have no idea that Pete said slant.
IMO Pete said pass (as he stated several times) and Bevell chose the ridiculous inside slant that was right into the teeth of the D.

This! Pete said pass and Bevell chose that ridiculously dangerous play.

And to repeat what I said earlier...I don't think Bevell should be fired. I think he is excellent at designing plays and schemes but he is a terrible game coach.

Bevell chose the play, the formation, and the personnel. He chose a play that went into the teeth of the defense, thrown to the worst receiver on the roster, while having Kearse up against Browner in a match up he hadn't won all day. Which part of this makes sense? It was a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Wasn't Lockette having a pretty decent second half? As a ST gunner, too, you'd think he would be the perfect receiver to slant in hard while expecting some contact.

 

[razor150]

Wasn't Lockette having a pretty decent second half? As a ST gunner, too, you'd think he would be the perfect receiver to slant in hard while expecting some contact.

I don't remember Lockette really doing much, but being a ST gunner is different from running a precise route and then fighting for the ball if needed. Bevell's public criticism of Lockette on the play wasn't exactly wrong, it was just classless, and Lockette shouldn't have been the primary receiver on that play.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Wasn't Lockette having a pretty decent second half? As a ST gunner, too, you'd think he would be the perfect receiver to slant in hard while expecting some contact.

I don't remember Lockette really doing much, but being a ST gunner is different from running a precise route and then fighting for the ball if needed. Bevell's public criticism of Lockette on the play wasn't exactly wrong, it was just classless, and Lockette shouldn't have been the primary receiver on that play.

I guess we would have differing opinions on "public criticism" as I don't see the response to a reporter's question being "we could've gone a little harder to the ball" as being a public flogging. Also, you know, it was the truth.
And I do think Ricardo had made a few catches in the game. My thought is that his body type, speed and propensity to work in contact made him a good candidate to run that route. Ball gets there a split second quicker or he's a half-step quicker getting to the spot where the ball is thrown and it's gold.
Don't forget Butler making the play of his career as a rookie also figured in prominently.
Anyhow, that's in the past and we've won, what, 19 games since? Making the Super Bowl 3 times in 4 years will put us in some pretty select company.

 

[Sports Hernia]

This is the tragic irony of Bevell haters. I just literally told the story of how the last play in the SB went down, and you still blame Bevell.

You have no idea that Pete said slant.
IMO Pete said pass (as he stated several times) and Bevell chose the ridiculous inside slant that was right into the teeth of the D.

This! Pete said pass and Bevell chose that ridiculously dangerous play.

And to repeat what I said earlier...I don't think Bevell should be fired. I think he is excellent at designing plays and schemes but he is a terrible game coach.

Bevell chose the play, the formation, and the personnel. He chose a play that went into the teeth of the defense, thrown to the worst receiver on the roster, while having Kearse up against Browner in a match up he hadn't won all day. Which part of this makes sense? It was a disaster waiting to happen.

BINGO!

 

[Sports Hernia]

Wasn't Lockette having a pretty decent second half? As a ST gunner, too, you'd think he would be the perfect receiver to slant in hard while expecting some contact.

I don't remember Lockette really doing much, but being a ST gunner is different from running a precise route and then fighting for the ball if needed. Bevell's public criticism of Lockette on the play wasn't exactly wrong, it was just classless, and Lockette shouldn't have been the primary receiver on that play.

I guess we would have differing opinions on "public criticism" as I don't see the response to a reporter's question being "we could've gone a little harder to the ball" as being a public flogging. Also, you know, it was the truth.
And I do think Ricardo had made a few catches in the game. My thought is that his body type, speed and propensity to work in contact made him a good candidate to run that route. Ball gets there a split second quicker or he's a half-step quicker getting to the spot where the ball is thrown and it's gold.
Don't forget Butler making the play of his career as a rookie also figured in prominently.
Anyhow, that's in the past and we've won, what, 19 games since? Making the Super Bowl 3 times in 4 years will put us in some pretty select company.

Butler made the play because Browner told him it was coming and told him where the ball was going to be thrown.
I ask you why wasn't THAT factored into the play call????

Browner said he could see what play they were going to run because of the formation and personnel.

 

[cymatica]

would anyone here prefer lockette gets the ball in that situation, in the biggest moment of the biggest game? You could make the case for a pass play, or even a slant, but is there a good explanation why lockette is the primary over, say, baldwin?

 

[Seymour]

would anyone here prefer lockette gets the ball in that situation, in the biggest moment of the biggest game? You could make the case for a pass play, or even a slant, but is there a good explanation why lockette is the primary over, say, baldwin?

Because coverage had him matched up with the rookie for one. Also, Chris Mathews was our leading receiver for the day, and Lockett was 2nd with 3 catches 50 or so yards. Baldwin had 1 catch for 3 yards with a steamer in the end zone, so he was literally sh!t out of luck.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Wasn't Lockette having a pretty decent second half? As a ST gunner, too, you'd think he would be the perfect receiver to slant in hard while expecting some contact.

I don't remember Lockette really doing much, but being a ST gunner is different from running a precise route and then fighting for the ball if needed. Bevell's public criticism of Lockette on the play wasn't exactly wrong, it was just classless, and Lockette shouldn't have been the primary receiver on that play.

I guess we would have differing opinions on "public criticism" as I don't see the response to a reporter's question being "we could've gone a little harder to the ball" as being a public flogging. Also, you know, it was the truth.
And I do think Ricardo had made a few catches in the game. My thought is that his body type, speed and propensity to work in contact made him a good candidate to run that route. Ball gets there a split second quicker or he's a half-step quicker getting to the spot where the ball is thrown and it's gold.
Don't forget Butler making the play of his career as a rookie also figured in prominently.
Anyhow, that's in the past and we've won, what, 19 games since? Making the Super Bowl 3 times in 4 years will put us in some pretty select company.

Butler made the play because Browner told him it was coming and told him where the ball was going to be thrown.
I ask you why wasn't THAT factored into the play call????

Browner said he could see what play they were going to run because of the formation and personnel.

Well, there was no way he knew for sure and even if he did, I believe we still score a TD if it's executed a split second better. Hey, who knows, that end result might make us that much better and hungrier in building as much of a dynasty as one can in the free agent and salary cap era.

 

[edogg23]

All I want for Christmas this year is a new OC.

 

[razor150]

would anyone here prefer lockette gets the ball in that situation, in the biggest moment of the biggest game? You could make the case for a pass play, or even a slant, but is there a good explanation why lockette is the primary over, say, baldwin?

Because coverage had him matched up with the rookie for one. Also, Chris Mathews was our leading receiver for the day, and Lockett was 2nd with 3 catches 50 or so yards. Baldwin had 1 catch for 3 yards with a steamer in the end zone, so he was literally sh!t out of luck.

I remember watching video of Baldwin getting open against Revis pretty consistently all day. I don't think the fault is Baldwin, it was that they had gameplanned not to test Revis much like many QBs don't even test Sherman.

Also, under these circumstances Lockette still doesn't make a lot of sense. A fade to Baldwin in the corner of the end zone would have been much safer even against Revis. We're talking about a confined space with not a lot of room for error, you don't put the game in the hands of the 5th receiver on your roster unless you are desperate and have no other options.

 

[cymatica]

would anyone here prefer lockette gets the ball in that situation, in the biggest moment of the biggest game? You could make the case for a pass play, or even a slant, but is there a good explanation why lockette is the primary over, say, baldwin?

Because coverage had him matched up with the rookie for one. Also, Chris Mathews was our leading receiver for the day, and Lockett was 2nd with 3 catches 50 or so yards. Baldwin had 1 catch for 3 yards with a steamer in the end zone, so he was literally sh!t out of luck.

Wilson threw the ball as soon as he got it, kearse also had a specific role to shield butler from the slant route. The play was specifically designed to get the ball where lockette was, I think the rookie matchup had almost nothing to do with it.

Lockette having 3 catches for 50 on completely unrelated plays should have nothing to do with that decision, even the most harsh bevell critics would give him more credit than that.